Comprehensive Analysis on the Blue Ribbon Proposals Part 5 ““ Recommendation #2: The Proposals do not Clarify the Congregational Principle, by Pr. Rossow

December 3rd, 2009 Post by

This is Part 5 of a continuing series analyzing the final report of the Blue Ribbon Task Force on Structure and Governance (BRTFSG).  

All posts in this series are listed here.


Here is the text of Recommendation #2:

Recommendation #2: Clarify the Congregational Principle

In order to advance Christ’s mission and clarify who we are by underscoring the essentially congregational character of the Synod, the role of the ordained and commissioned members (all associate members), and the participation of the laity in the life and work of the Synod, we recommend revising and clarifying Article V of the Synod’s Constitution into more contemporary and clarifying language. (Appendix 1, Pages 1.4 – 1.5, 1.12)

Considering the title of this section, Clarify the Congregational Principle, makes me scratch my head in wonderment. The proposed change to the constitution does not clarify the congregational principle. What it does is change the historic mix of pastoral and lay delegates. It should be titled Changing Who Gets to Vote at a Synodical Convention.

For the record, the “congregational principle” is the Waltherian teaching that the congregation is the basic building block of the church. Denominations are not the building block (Rome) nor are individuals (Pentecostals). The local congregation is where the word and sacrament are administered and so all that is needed for salvation is present in the local parish making it the basic building block of the church. The Task Force keeps telling us that one of the main goals of their proposals is to strengthen the congregational principle  but that comes off more as an Alinsky-like tactic on their part rather than the actual fact of the matter. (Saul Alinsky is the community organizer noteworthy for tactics such as repeating something over and over until people believed it.) There is certainly nothing that strengthens or clarifies the “congregational principle”  in this recommendation.

The real meat of this recommendation is in its proposed change to the LCMS constitution. What the proposed change to the constitution (Appendix 1, p. 1.4) does in this recommendation is to consolidate the historical grouping of three types of synod delegates into two. Historically there were the pastoral delegates, the lay delegates and the advisory delegates. The category of advisory delegate consisted of associate pastors, teachers, retired pastors and teachers, etc. It is being proposed that advisory delegates be lumped in with the pastoral delegates and the category be renamed “associate delegate.” This is not a clarification of the congregational principle. This is a reworking of who is allowed to vote at the convention. Here is a simple chart of the changes.

Current Categories of Synod Convention Delegates

  1. Pastoral – senior or sole pastor of a congregation; able to vote
  2. Lay – layman; able to vote
  3. Advisory – Associate pastor, retired pastor, commissioned workers (e.g. days school teacher, DCE, etc.); not able to vote

Proposed

  1. Associate – any pastor or commissioned worker; able to vote
  2. Lay – layman, able to vote

The upside to this proposal is that now commissioned church workers (teachers. DCE’s, etc.) will be allowed to be delegates. The down side is that the 50/50 mix of pastor and layman, designed by the synod’s founder C. F. W. Walther over a century and a half ago and used ever since  is now being cast aside. Since commissioned workers  could represent a circuit in place of a pastor we stand to lose as many pastors at the convention as there are circuits with commissioned workers  or retired commissioned ministers. Conceivably you could lose just about every pastoral delegate since there is a commissioned minister in nearly every circuit of the synod. This is highly unlikely but it is possible and it leaves me scratching my head as to why we would want such a potentially drastic change.

It is unwise and careless of the Task Force to propose such a new structure that could greatly diminish the role of pastors at the synodical convention. It is also not a matter of clarifying the congregational principle as they describe it. This has nothing to do with “the congregational principle” unless of course you think that having less pastoral input at synodical conventions clarifies and strengthens the congregation’s role in synod matters.

This also makes it clear that President Kieschnick and the Task Force are rushing this process. To radically change the ratio of pastors to laity is a huge consideration. President Kieschnick and the Task Force should have had more sensitivity to the synod than to force it through all of these changes in less than a year and with only one convention to think them through.

What is even more disturbing, speaking of delegates at convention, is that the proposed constitution no longer has circuits electing delegates. Instead, each district is allowed to pick its delegates in whatever fashion it desires. This actually limits the congregation instead of increasing it as the Task Force claims. But that comes up in Recommendation #10 so we will have to wait to review that example of the Task Force taking authority away from the congregation and giving it to the district and synod.

 


All posts in this series are listed here.

 






Rules for comments on this site:


Engage the contents and substance of the post. Rabbit trails and side issues do not help the discussion of the topics.  Our authors work hard to write these articles and it is a disservice to them to distract from the topic at hand.  If you have a topic you think is important to have an article or discussion on, we invite you to submit a request through the "Ask a Pastor" link or submit a guest article.


Provide a valid email address. If you’re unwilling to do this, we are unwilling to let you comment.


Provide at least your first name. Please try to come up with a unique name; if you have a common name add something to it so you aren't confused with another user. We have several "john"'s already for example.  If you have a good reason to use a fake name, please do so but realize that the administrators of the site expect a valid email address and also reserve the right to ask you for your name privately at any time.


If you post as more than one person from the same IP address, we’ll block that address.


Do not engage in ad hominem arguments. We will delete such comments, and will not be obligated to respond to any complaints (public or private ones) about deleting your comments.


Interaction between people leaving comments ought to reflect Christian virtue, interaction that is gracious and respectful, not judging motives.  If error is to be rebuked, evidence of the error ought to be provided.


We reserve the right to identify and deal with trollish behavior as we see fit and without apology.  This may include warnings (public or private ones) or banning.

  1. C.S.
    December 3rd, 2009 at 13:29 | #1

    This recommendation put into practice would lead to the replacement of delegates with more theological training by those with less. That is the last thing our increasingly theologically weak synod needs. I know some Lutheran school teachers that know Lutheran Theology better than their pastor, but I pray this is an exception to the rule. It is time for the LCMS to get back to its focus on Christ and His doctrine. The rest of what the Church does flows from this alone.

  2. johannes
    December 3rd, 2009 at 20:01 | #2

    Do we have any idea whatsoever just how these proposed changes will be acted upon?
    Omnibus resolution?
    Series of amendments?
    All or nothing?

    Beware of those who would “respectfully call the question” or whatever term you wish to use. I’ve seen it used as a parliamentary club to push a political group’s agenda–with a vengeance.

    ugh!

  3. Kurt Klingbeil
    December 5th, 2009 at 15:08 | #3

    I believe, according to the Constitution Article V section B, the advisory delegate is the assistant pastor not the associate pastor. The associate Pastor, if elected by the circuit can be a voting delegate.

If you have problems commenting on this site, or need to change a comment after it has been posted on the site, please contact us. For help with getting your comment formatted, click here.
Subscribe to comments feed  ..  Subscribe to comments feed for this post
Anonymous comments are welcome on this board, but we do require a valid email address so the admins can verify who you are. Please try to come up with a unique name; if you have a common name add something to it so you aren't confused with another user. We have several "john"'s already for example. Email addresses are kept private on this site, and only available to the site admins. Comments posted without a valid email address may not be published. Want an icon to identify your comment? See this page to see how.
*

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.